Well, if there's anything that will endear Santorum to leftist feminists, it's promising to ban pornography. I promise you - no matter how much feminists say they think porn is "empowering" or whatever, they hate it and try everything they can to get rid of it. Most recently they've required that porn actors in LA wear condoms, because they know that men don't like that kind of porn as much.

Yup. He moved me from undecided to "no fricken way" with that comment.

It's amazing to me how erstwhile conservatives, who are supposed to be more logical, methodical, and suspicious of emotional hot-button issues, are so quick to let their knee jerk with the same fervor as liberals do.

The Daily Caller is completely in the tank for Romney (like a lot of the commenters here, apparently), and so they tell you what you want to hear, and you react accordingly.

I thought conservatives were different than liberals? Have the school systems so indoctrinated us all that we can't see a biased story that's written from our side as well?

I know that this is a position paper buried somewhere on Santorum's website and that it's not likely he'll raise it as a campaign issue. But that he has position papers like this on his website in this day and age and during a pretty intense primary season is just stupid.

Forget the First Amendment issues -- it's the stupidity.

Why would he even post this to his website? It's bizarre, and the only thing it makes me think is maybe he's covering his ass for his own internet porn collection by claiming it's "research" or something.

I know that this is a position paper buried somewhere on Santorum's website and that it's not likely he'll raise it as a campaign issue. But that he has position papers like this on his website in this day and age and during a pretty intense primary season is just stupid.

I'm not sure if they're on their websites directly, but here are the other two Repubs' opinions on the same subject:

Former Governor Mitt Romney in a written statement:

"(I)t is imperative that we cultivate the promotion of fundamental family values. This can be accomplished with increased parental involvement and enhanced supervision of our children. It includes strict enforcement of our nation's obscenity laws, as well as the promotion of parental software controls that guard our children from Internet pornography."

Former Speaker Newt Gingrich in a face-to-face meeting:

When MIM's Executive Director Dawn Hawkins asked former Speaker Gingrich if he will enforce existing laws that make distribution of hard-core adult pornography illegal, he responded: "Yes, I will appoint an Attorney General who will enforce these laws."

I thought this might be an exaggeration of his position. But it looks like it is not.

America is suffering a pandemic of harm from pornography. A wealth of research is now available demonstrating that pornography causes profound brain changes in both children and adults, resulting in widespread negative consequences.

Apparently Miss March has damaged my brain according to Rick. Maybe burqas for all are in order since I can't think for myself.

It's that Santorum decides this is something he's going to be aggressive about when we have such pressing issues regarding jobs, energy, healthcare issues, and, of course, debt that's so telling.

He never learns -- he doesn't get it. Social issues are not on anyone else's mind. Focusing on social issues is going to get us another four years of Obama. You either get it or you don't. He clearly doesn't. That he doesn't get it speaks to his character, his smarts, his savvy.

Would someone please explain where the differences are between the three candidates when it comes to this subject?

No differences because they are all spouting something they think will brand them as family men and as tough on crime. The fact that they may all three (Santorum and Romney probably for sure, Gingrich probably not) actually believe what they say is tangential.

Because he put it there, he leaves himself open to accusations that he's going to start a war on porn. Because he put it there, he's going to get questioned, and he's going to say something that will become the sound byte from hell. Because he put it there, someone will find a way to use it against him.

How does he not know this by now?

_That's_ the problem.

He should have known better than to put the damned thing on his website.

And I don't think this is as much a loser as people seem to think for Santorum.

He says that Obama's administration has been neglecting to enforce the laws we have. We can all point out a few examples where that is true, can't we. So obscenity laws get ignored and voter intimidation gets ignored and Holder was somehow not responsible for selling guns... whatever.

But does the American on the street really think that hardcore porn (and Santorum made at *least* that specification) on the internet and around every corner is a wonderful thing? They don't.

Really... is it a horror if porn is at least as difficult to come by as contraceptives?

So Santorum says that he'd enforce the laws that the Obama administration ignores. It's part of his policy pages and not actually a much stronger statement than Romney or Newt. He's not front-lining it. And suddenly he's a frothing at the mouth crusader gonna take away your HBO?

Everybody lies. They were lying about Romney the other day, that he was out to destroy Planned Parenthood "gonna get rid of that."

It should be noted that it was Democrat Bill Clinton, not the extremist Santorum, who signed and enacted into law the first federal law to regulate porn on the Internet (Communications Decency Act of 1996).

And it was Bill Clinton, not the extremist Santorum, who signed and enacted into law the Child Online Protection Act.

And it was Bill Clinton, not the extremist Santorum, who signed and enacted into law the Children's Internet Protection Act.

He should have known better than to put the damned thing on his website.

-N: I don't know if you fall into this group or not; I mean this generally.

It's ironic to me, but the same people who bitch about politicians being liars, are the first ones to complain when one actually tells the truth.

People, you can't have it both ways. If you want to be continually lied to, then don't complain about politicians being liars.

Santorum has been NOTHING but honest this entire campaign. There isn't a shred of proof that Romney would or wouldn't do the same thing if elected, but folks seem happy to be lied to on this subject. At least to the point where a lie by omission is good enough.

But does the American on the street really think that hardcore porn (and Santorum made at *least* that specification) on the internet and around every corner is a wonderful thing? They don't.

But do they think it is anywhere near as important as the economy, the debt, the war in Afghanistan and repealing Obamacare?

The real problem with Santorum is that you can't really trust him to go into the WH with the economy uppermost in his mind. He claims Romney can't be trusted to repeal Obamacare for various reasons, but Santorum just screams "I've got other priorities! I want to spark a Great Awakening in America!" with campaign pronouncements like this.

Like Obama, Santorum will plan to come in and do that little thing, fix the economy, in a few weeks so everyone will shut up about it, and then pivot to what he really believes God put him on earth to do as president -- put our moral compass right.

After Obama, we can't afford not to listen to the things candidates say about their presidency. Santorum would lead a tragic diversion from the most important policy decisions. I could easily see him trading off support for higher taxes in return for Congress approving a High Porn Commission.

Is it a winner if it supercedes economic issues? Or even if the perception is that Santorum will prioritize some war on porn over economic issues?

That's the question. Yes, the Daily Caller is playing politics here, but Santorum handed them the opportunity on a silver platter. Is someone that shortsighted a good choice for the Republican candidate?

The truth is, many on the putative “right” fear religion — and they’d rather take a Romney mandate in the ass than feel scolded for liking to beat off to Japanese anime by a guy who actually believes in all that Jesusy shit.

And they’ve made it clear that, where their “conservativism” is concerned, they’re more comfortable backing a guy who supported stimulus, TARP, an individual mandate, state-run healthcare, cap-and-trade, a bureaucratic attack on religious liberty, and federal minimum wage laws tied to inflation, than they are being tut-tutted about their own kink.

Maybe I don't understand what qualifies as "hardcore" or "obscene" (in the legal, non-constitutionally protected sense).

At this point, do we really know it when we see it? I'm not sure that I do.

Are close ups of genetalia or penetration "obscene", and therefore, illegal? I can't imagine that they are not at least obscene, yet those are basically yawn-worthy in the world of the internet.

If those things are illegal, that should change if for no other reason than that we shouldn't have broadly ignored laws on our books in general.

(Full disclosure: I'm inclined to agree that the commonality of porn is not a good thing for culture/society. I just don't think that it's reasonable, practical, or constitutional to have laws against it.)

I do get the notion that the economy is the most important thing. I don't expect candidates to refuse to have any other information on their websites. Websites are supposed to have the long versions and policy statements on stuff that's not the top two or three issues.

There isn't a single candidate that doesn't include this other stuff.

And lest we forget the last episode in this circus, what WILL happen is that reporters WILL relentlessly ask diversionary questions about stupid crap and then in-between will mourn how the campaigns aren't about the issues that are important to America.

This WILL happen. And it is not in any way dependent on if a candidate sets himself up for it or not.

I.Cal There isn't a shred of proof that Romney would or wouldn't do the same thing if elected,

I disagree. The Romney quote was in response to a direct question about whether he would enforce existing laws, and he said he would enforce existing laws, among other non-coercive things. Perfectly reasonable and boring(although it does beg a question of what the laws actually are).

Santorum, however, specifically did a position paper on his website intentionally going after the issue and the imperitive to Do Something about it.

The only difference is that Santorum had it on his website. Romney's position is the SAME as Santorum's; Santorum just made a bigger deal about it. They both say they'd enforce current laws that the Obama administration won't.

So we're back at square one: if you concede the above, you have to admit that you'd rather have a candidate that doesn't tell you what he'd do as opposed to one that does tell you what he'd do.

"Santorum, however, specifically did a position paper on his website intentionally going after the issue and the imperitive to Do Something about it."

By enforcing existing laws.

But maybe you can find the part where he said he's going to push for stricter laws.

Though again... average age of exposure to hardcore porn on the internet is age 11?

I suppose that sort of implies that he's not just trying to sound all social conservative, he might actually think it matters for real and not for political points.

I see two very large demographic groups in his favor... old prudes who wonder how the world went to hell, and parents who resent selfish adults deliberately making their jobs harder than they need to be because the equivalent of a "child proof cap" is a infringement on their happy time.

Well, I'm not a fan of porn (never seen sex as a spectator sport) and tend to think of it as degrading to women etc. I know folks insist it leads to rape and violence against women, but there have been several studies showing there is less violence against women where porn is more widely available. So, I just can't see crusading against it and would rather leave it to individual choice.

So long as the definition of porn consists of; "consenting adults watching consenting adults"... I love porn, tens of millions of us do, male & female alike. Sorry, Ricky-boy, this is a loose-loose issue for you son.

And, like I said, I doubt Santorum would have brought this up outside of his website if he wasn't directly asked.

The perception of Santorum is that he's a priggish, sanctimonious, holier-than-thou about these things, however, and he HAS to know that. So why hand your opponents that kind of ammunition? That speaks to the guy's judgment, IMO.

As far as why Romney over Santorum, it's because he's the best bet in November. They're a dismal lot, but he's got the best chance of beating Obama. Not that it's much of a chance at this point, but he's the guy with the edge.

But maybe you can find the part where he said he's going to push for stricter laws.

That depends (I’m at work and I’m not going to do a search for it) but in the last paragraph he mentions that he supports the efforts of a Coalition that is very concerned about this topic. If that Coalition favors stricter laws above and beyond what we already have, I don’t think it’s unfair to think that Senator Santorum does as well.

Particularly since Santorum was the only one of the candidates who thought that this issue was important enough to be featured on the issues page of his website.

I'll accept for the purposes of argument that Santorum has something about porn on his website. I don't know. I've never been to his website.

So, OK, he has it on his website and Romney does not.

But the federal government has it on its websites too.

The federal government has laws against porn and obscenity on its statute books.

Santorum is hardly the outrageous extremist here.

And, whoever is elected this November, although our current president has made a mockery of it, whoever is elected, even a President Romney, will have to take an oath to execute and enforce the laws of the United States, including those laws already on the books.

Obama has made his career out of supporting bills that control people's lives (and deaths). He has supported bigger bills that aim to control us even more in the future. This whole issue is another sideshow aimed at men instead of women.

I wholly agree with this.

Now how could someone who made an intelligent comment like the one above, be the same person who thinks that I'm for Obama?

It seems that people are more than willing to use this "bombshell" to abandon any support of Santorum, but aren't going to spend even a moment asking themselves why Daily Caller and its parrots would dig up a ten-week-old statement at this time.

Does it ever occur to you that you are being manipulated? Does it bother you in the least?

puh-leeze...there wouldn't even BE the internet as we know it if it weren't for porn. it was the quick, private availability of porn that encouraged millions to, if you'll pardon the expression, log on. sexual imagery has been part of the human experience since the cave paintings and has driven the popularity of every new form of media ever since then. anybody who thinks they are gonna stamp out porn is just plain nuts.

There is a pretty big difference. Romney saying he does not like obscenity and will enforce existing laws and of course - protect the children! - while focusing on the economy and the dangerous world we live in - is modest compared to what Saint Torum wants.But Romney says his focus is on the economy, the debt, the jobs, the dangerous world.

Santorum says if elected he will ALSO focus on eradicating porn from the Internet, that community standards of small evangelical towns on what is on the Internet are just as important as the rest of the country.A frequent hotel guest, Santorum also has a thing about "obscene movie rentals on the hotel's TV system" and wants them banned.

What Newt thinks is unimportant, because Newt doesn't matter.

My sense is Romney will start out a term in office introducing his economic team that will be cutting spending, eliminating regulations, working to lower energy and food prices.. and promising, like Clinton, a laser focus on the economy.

Santorum, my sense, would start his term with platitudes on the economy and specific appointments of a Contraception Czar, a Anti-Pornography Anywhere Czar, and a commission to educate women about the joys of staying home and being a full time Mom to each blessed baby conceived.

Fight sex trafficking, fight child exploitation. But otherwise leave the darn internet alone! I hate internet censors. No one is making you go look at it, other than viruses, and no one gets those deliberately. Santorum is driving off the libertarian-leaning part of the party. So dumb!

Does it ever occur to you that you are being manipulated? Does it bother you in the least?"

How do you think Santorum got a surge at the expense of Gingrich in the first place? Hint: manipulation was involved. Santorum was hand-picked by Romney to be his final primary opponent because he's easy to beat.

What makes you so sure he doesn't care? Because he hasn't made a big deal out of it?

I think it’s fair to say Senator Santorum cares a lot more about this than either Governor Romney or Speaker Gingrich.

I think it’s also fair to say that a President Santorum is more likely to make enforcing obscenity laws a higher priority than either President Romney or President Gingrich would relative to all of the other laws that a President is charged with enforcing.

I also think it’s fair to say - and we saw some of this during the debate over SOPA – that President Romney and President Gingrich are far less likely to support new regulations over things like the internet because of how it would hamper private sector economic growth, whereas a President Santorum might be more easily persuaded to go along with them if it contains some additional “anti-obscenity measures.”

It seems that people are more than willing to use this "bombshell" to abandon any support of Santorum, but aren't going to spend even a moment asking themselves why Daily Caller and its parrots would dig up a ten-week-old statement at this time.

If Santorum is unable to weather criticism for what he deliberately put up on his website ten weeks ago, I shudder to think how he’d fair in the general election where anything he said or did thirty years ago would be fair game.

I Callahan - "People complained that Santorum is a scold. Fine. I pointed out that the other two are as well, even if they're not as public about it."

No, you pointed out that when pressed, Romney, Paul,and Newt all pay lip service to the religious right's platform...but they are running on the economy. As fiscal conservatives 1st.Both Romney and Ron Paul have lived the life the religious right declares "proper" - but are not preachy, self-righteous, running around in high moral dungeon about the sins and shortcomings of others. And Newt best stick to his "I'm a fallen sinner looking for my own redemption, not seeking to instruct others in corrrecting their personal moral failings" line.

Romney doesn't drink. Thinks it is wrong to drink in his faith. But doesn't lecture people about it. He even sprung, on occasion, for beer as well as pizza and soda (caffienated at that) for his staff get-togethers.Ron Paul saved more babies than 100 Saint Torum speeches - but ask him to focus on contraception instead of the debt and he would look at you like you are from Mars.

chickenlittle: Concerned people should read the Other McCain article which I Callahan linked at 11:16 (but not for the reasons Callahan suggested).

Money quote:

If you see a turtle on fencepost, did it get there itself?

You know, I didn't really find McCain's post all that convincing. My reading would be that some "journalist" says "Hmm, what can we write about? Let's go read some of the candidates' websites in detail and see if there's anything interesting that no one's covered yet ... Hello, what's this?"

That seems pretty normal in the field of reporting to me. It's not like they pulled out something that he said in college - it's on his campaign website, and no one's ever noticed it, but it's interesting. It doesn't seem wrong to point it out.

All this chatter about how one candidate or another will go after porn more than Obama has. So, who is saying that the Obama administration is NOT going after porn? The truth is that porn convictions are growing at alarming rates...alarming because most convictions are of the lookers, not the people who are actually abusing children.

The criminal justice industry needs prisoners or it will wither away, and what better target than the one criminal NOBODY will defend?

Santorum was a fool to say anything about this topic. N is correct about that.

If Santorum is unable to weather criticism for what he deliberately put up on his website ten weeks ago, I shudder to think how he’d fair in the general election where anything he said or did thirty years ago would be fair game.

Exactly. You folks saying this is Politico manipulating us have no understanding of the modern-day campaign.

I recognize that some aspects of porn are a problem, and that any president is going to oversee a DOJ that busts porn rings. Sex trafficking is a growing problem.

But the means by which you start cracking down on internet porn and hotel porn, etc. also stirs up legitimate concerns about the first amendment.

But the main thing is, as with contraception and gay marriage, who the hell is WORRIED about this right now? How can you have space in the brain to worry about it? Grow up people, we're facing existential economic issues that go to the heart of the relationship between the individual and the US government! Deciding these social issues isn't important right now. We can argue about them later, in a time of peace and prosperity, which will take a while to get to, and can't be achieved if we get divided over this stuff.

It is startling that those in the media and academia appear most disturbed by this aberrant behavior, since they have zealously promoted moral relativism by sanctioning "private" moral matters such as alternative lifestyles. Priests, like all of us, are affected by culture. When the culture is sick, every element in it becomes infected. While it is no excuse for this scandal, it is no surprise that Boston, a seat of academic, political and cultural liberalism in America, lies at the center of the storm.

alarming because most convictions are of the lookers, not the people who are actually abusing children.

People who consume child pornography are every bit as guilty of abusing those children as the people who create the product are.

Sorry. When you buy child pornography you subsidize human trafficking and sexual abuse of children. That's what you're paying for -- you're paying for someone to abuse a child in order to create a product for you.

For all that I think Santorum's biggest problem is his inability to resist pontificating on the social issues, I'm no advocate of pornography at all. I don't think it empowers women, nor do I think healthy women willingly choose to create porn, and I don't think mature, healthy men seek out porn. It's a disgusting industry, preying on weak, sick people. However, if the industry follows the law, there's not a lot I can do about it.

My problem with Santorum is that, if he manages to win the nomination (he won't), he can't win in November, and it's because he doesn't understand that discretion is the better part of valor. Kudos for being a person of integrity on these matters, but not if harping on them gets us four more years of Obama. It's not about Rick and his chosen religion right now. It's about the future of this country.

I recognize that some aspects of porn are a problem, and that any president is going to oversee a DOJ that busts porn rings. Sex trafficking is a growing problem.

But none of that has anything to do with obscenity.

Kidnapping, rape, and child molestation are illegal whether you film them or not, and regardless of whether or not the resulting film qualifies as "obscene" under existing subjective court standards.

The only purpose of obscenity laws is for prosecuting people who haven't actually hurt anybody or broken any other laws, but who are producing material that squicks other people out. It is a means for going after people who make material with, by, and for consenting adults.

"traditionalguy said... I take it that this is the war about whether men prefer Broad women or Skinny women. This question may never be settled. And how would a virgin at marriage that stays faithful ever be able to compare the two?"

If X is protected under the first amendment, getting paid for X must similarly be protected.

You realize you can't kill somebody and film it and receive first amendment protections, right?

The movie is protected. But your conduct, the act, is not speech and does not fall under the free speech clause.

So you can't punish somebody for watching a snuff film. But you could use that film to punish the people who made the film.

It's evidence in the prosecution for the crime, which is the act of killing. You're not punishing anybody for the idea of violence (the speech), but for the actual conduct.

That's why you can't punish people for faking a homicide in a movie. The idea is the same. You're watching a violent movie. It might look absolutely real to the audience. But it's not illegal to fake a homicide. (Or watch one in a movie). But it is illegal to commit one.

Neither prostitution nor fornication is protected under the free speech clause. But a film with sex in it obviously would be.

Otherwise the government could, say, make it illegal to accept money to print Bibles.

It's not a money/free distinction but a speech/conduct distinction.

The government cannot regulate the printing of books because the First Amendment specifically protects the press (i.e. the printed word).

Money is an important issue, of course, when talking about Congress, since most of their authority revolves around commerce.

So Congress could outlaw prostitution (but not fornication), and they could (theoretically) prosecute people for conspiracy to commit prostitution. But they have no authority to ban movies or to punish people for watching them.

I Callahan: Would someone please explain where the differences are between the three candidates when it comes to this subject?

Sure. Neither Romney nor Gingrich intends to make restricting porn the centerpiece of their administration. They intend to focus on more vital issues. Like the economy.

Your earlier comments are also off base. I've been in the Anyone But Romney crowd since this began (just ask Rev) but even I've come around to the idea that he's the most qualified candidate to pull us out of this marxist mess. I actually prefer Newt, but his personality and history will get in the way.

I've been in the Anyone But Romney crowd since this began (just ask Rev) but even I've come around to the idea that he's the most qualified candidate to pull us out of this marxist mess. I actually prefer Newt, but his personality and history will get in the way.

@ Fen

How about a Romney/Gingrich tag team.

Romney handles the economy and takes the high road, while Newt is the Pitt Bull as President Pro Tempore who makes Congress get in line and finally do something ....and chews the nads off of the media?

Romney handles the economy and takes the high road, while Newt is the Pitt Bull as President Pro Tempore who makes Congress get in line and finally do something ....and chews the nads off of the media?

Best of both worlds eh? That would be a motivating combination.

Problem I keep returning to with Romney is this feeling that he'll just be Obama-lite for 4 years. He needs to prove he won't simply maintain the status quo. I'm really tired of being let down post-election [Bush 1 & 2], and I know that "you campaign in poetry but govern in prose"... but I can't shake this feeling that whoever we elect is just playing us.

"You can get a large audience together for a strip-tease act - that is, to watch a girl undress on the stage. Now suppose you come to a country where you could fill a theatre by simply bringing a covered plate on to the stage and then slowly lifting the cover so as to let every one see, just before the lights went out, that it contained a mutton chop or a bit of bacon, would you not think that in that country something had gone wrong with the appetite for food? And would not anyone who had grown up in a different world think there was something equally queer about the state of the sex instinct among us" - C.S. Lewis

I'm sick and tired of "social conservatives" crawling out from under their rocks to interfere in the private lives of other people. Stay the fuck out of my bedroom and off my computer.

I'm a small government constitutional conservative. I believe in limited government...as in limited government. I do NOT believe in government hijacked by people with an ideological agenda that they want to shove down every one else's throat. That kind of nonsense is the primary reason I HATE leftists. It is sickening to me that so called conservatives would pull the same kind of crap the left does.

Obscenity laws have no place in a free and open society. They are unconscionable, unconstitutional, and only empower the state to the detriment of the individual.

Laws exist to protect our rights and our property. They do not exist to tell people how they should live.

It’s just dehumanizing. And I have to honestly say, I think this era of porn is at least partially responsible for it. Where is the anticipation and the personalization? It’s all pre-fab now. You have these images coming at you unannounced and unsolicited. It just gets to be so plastic and phony to me. Maybe men respond to that. But is it really better than an experience with a real life girl that he cares about? It’s an exploitation of the poor male’s libidos. Poor babies, they can’t control themselves.

I just imagine them sitting in front of their computers, completely annihilated. They haven’t done anything, they don’t have a job, they barely have ambition anymore. And it makes for laziness and a not very good sex partner. Do they know how to negotiate something that isn’t pre-fab and injected directly into their brain?

My fantasies were all made up on my own. They’re ruining us with all the explanations and the graphicness. Nobody remembers what it’s like to be left to form your own ideas about what’s erotic and sexual. We’re not allowed any individuality.-- Raquel Welch (Men's Health)

It's a war on men, which has broad implication for women, society, and humanity.

I always thought it odd that there existed a perception that degrading one woman was equivalent to degrading all women. Welch is correct that the degradation is primarily suffered by the voyeurs.

"...widespread distribution of illegal obscene pornography and its profound effects on our culture."

"...laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier"

...to tell people how they should live

For example, if you are marketing kiddie porn, your community and local law enforcement will be in your bedroom asking questions about how you live your life. I think reasonable people can agree that all this "get out of my bedroom" trope has certain boundries and limits. Is murder "none of your business" if it happens inside the privacy of someone' home?

Santorum's not wrong, he's just tone deaf to what Americans need him to focus on the first 100 days.

f Santorum is the nominee, I'll vote for Obama.

I hope that's mere hyperole. Else it disqualifies your other (good) comments from being taken seriously.

I'd vote for Stalin before Obama. At least he was a *competent* Marxist. :)

I like Rick even more for this - no fence sitter, he. This is a country in trouble - culturally - and I'm glad to see a man addressing it.

I was thinking a lot about music today, and how, as long as it's controlled by the Left, all we're going to get is more of the pseudo-subversive tripe we've been getting - M.I.A. flipping us off at the Superbowl, for instance - instead of the art we could be enjoying.

I think, for those afraid of what Santorum represents, they lack imagination regarding what we're already missing. I could live with a society that puts less emphasis on porn. Less Kim Kardashian. Less Madonna. Less of a lot of things, and more of something truly creative and fulfilling.

People should read Santorum's book It Takes a Family. It's a great book. He's proud of the fact that 54% of high school graduates now are virgins. I said that to a creative writing class today and unaccountably they began to applaud. It was a very mixed class: kids from Jamaica,, Senegal, Bronx, Queens, Westchester, and so on, and they were all cheering. One guy looked disgusted, but I think most of the kids are sick to death of the sexual revolution whether it's on video or in real life.

It's easy to be comforted by the idea that a candidate doesn't really mean what they say (such as Obama and his opposition to gay marriage), but if that's the case, how do you know what they'll do? You can't. You're *trusting* that they're lying.

You figure that Santorum is telling the truth, and that makes him frightening, but why would you assume he'd tell the truth about his position and lie about what he intended to do about it?

The fear of what he might do is sort of silly. He'll at least try to do what he's said he'll try to do. No need to make up some liberal fantasy Handmaid's Tale or Hunger Game. He's said that that pornography is bad and he's said what he'll do about it.

It is entirely a monetary distinction. You're saying you could prosecute actors in a porn film, but only because they were paid for appearing in it. Expression that is otherwise protected does not become un-protected because the people producing it are paid. You can't say it is a "conduct" issue, because the conduct is identical whether they're paid or not. The only difference is money.

As for Bible printing being protected because of freedom of the press -- I wasn't proposing any limit on the freedom to publish. Just on the freedom to accept money for publishing them. That's the same distinction you're drawing.

Yes he is, Fen. Repeating "illegal obscene pornography" doesn't change the fact that he is talking about porn involving consenting adults, sold to consenting adults.

It has nothing to do with kiddie porn. Why do you think he mentions "hotel TV" has a common carrier of the kind of porn he hates? When's the last time you stayed in a hotel that had kiddie porn on PPV?

I think that the kind of porn he "hates" is the sort that is trivially available to absolutely anyone or a toddler chewing on the remote control.

(Oh, okay, he hates it all, but what he says he will have his administration enforce are existing laws and fusses about the ubiquitousness of it all.)

And no, I don't think it's reasonable to put all the burden on parents just so that other adults don't have to take an extra step or two to access their porn.

And if I couldn't casually flip through the channels in my hotel room to find something to watch without being exposed to naked people doing the nasty, I'd be severely annoyed. If it's something that has to be specifically requested, then I've got no sympathy for him, but I do think that *I* have a right to NOT see porn, yes? And I have that right while doing normal things, like flipping channels at a hotel, where you never know what the channel settings are.

Call it child-proof caps. No ones rights to view ordinary wholesome bumping-uglies is infringed by a child-proof cap.

When I first read the headline, my first thought was "Well, so much for him."

Then I learned there was more to the story.

A lot of people are making much of Santorum "focusing" on that issue. Are they retarded? The ones focusing on that issue are the man's enemies.

He's a social con. What kind of moron do you have to be to expect a social con to have no position paper on social issues like pornography?

So with the ridiculous "publishing a position = fanatic" crap out of the way, I'd like to point out that not once has anyone here pointed out an actual example of him highlighting the issue. So all this "the centerpiece of (his) administration" crap is you frigging making stories up out of thin air.

Also, shame on those of you who are conflating regular porn with obscenity. One's illegal and has been so for the longest time, the other isn't. Back here in the real world, that means his DOJ will spend a bit more time on those prosecutions. OH NOES.

Disclaimer: He's my third favorite candidate, precisely because he's a Soc Con. But the way you people rush to be the first to confirm media stereotypes is nothing short of frightening. Have you no minds of your own?

Actually your best bet would be to vote for a 3rd/4th party that better suits your tastes.

By voting for Obama, you're telling the Professional Pollsters that you're willing to accept him despite his major flaws and thus nothing will change in the next election - the major parties will still keep on putting the same ol' same ol' on the ticket.

If more people started voting outside the TwoPartySystem...especially if there are enough votes to "cover the spread"...then the PartyLeaders will see that they need to address other opinions/stances in order to win your vote. Until that happens, they can just ignore those concerns 'cause you're still voting for their guy anyways.

It can be a slow process, but that is how Woman's Suffrage was finally passed in this country, as well as the passage & repeal of Alcohol Prohibition.

Oh, okay, he hates it all, but what he says he will have his administration enforce are existing laws and fusses about the ubiquitousness of it all

What you may be missing is that all "obscene" porn is illegal under current law. This is one reason why "illegal obscene pornography" is a silly phrase; "obscene pornography" is by definition illegal.

The problem is that there is no objective definition of "obscene". The way pornographers find out that their work is obscene is that they get prosecuted, spend a lot of money on lawyers, and then have 12 jurors tell them one way or the other.

So when Santorum talks about going after "illegal obscene pornography" and lists hotel pay per view porn as part of the problem, that tells me he's wants to go after mainstream pornographers -- ALL of whom are vulnerable to prosecution, since none can objectively be said to be producing non-obscene material.

He doesn't even have to win the trials. He can bankrupt them with the trials themselves, the way left-wingers have hoped to do with lawsuits against gun manufacturers.

Oh, one other thing -- so far as I know, no hotel has free porn, although you might see some nudity if you flip past HBO or something. Hotels make serious moolah off marked-up pay per view porn. Lots of lonely business travelers out there.